On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:08:18 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: > · Standard alternative use in the form "concrete|virtual", as used for > normal deps on virtual packages. Is this sensible? > · Architecture-specific dependencies > · Broken uses. Dependencies on multiple different libraries which will > lead to inconsistent builds. This affects only a tiny minority of > packages. The most obviously broken one I found is already fixed. > · Pointless and/or broken [..] > perl (>= 5.10) | libmodule-build-perl
Could you please explain what's "pointless and/or broken" about that one? (Except that it's old since even lenny has 5.10.0. More recent exmples: perl (>= 5.10.1) | libtest-simple-perl (>= 0.88) perl (>= 5.12.3) | libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.3601) etc.) > My take on this is that anything other than arch-specific alternatives > should be strongly discouraged, if not outright banned, and that this > should be put into Policy. Alternative viewpoints, with examples and > rationale would be useful to hear. For perl packages: if Module::Build, Test::More, etc. (as dual-lifed modules) are in two packages, I see no point in not allowing them both. And this makes backporting, building "at home" etc. easier. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Police: King Of Pain
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
